THE ARCHITECTURE
OF
PROVENCE AND THE RIVIERA

THE ARCHITECTURE OF
P R O V E N C E
AND
THE RIVIERA

BY
DAVID MACGIBBON
AUTHOR OF “THE CASTELLATED AND DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE OF SCOTLAND.”

PREFACE.

HAVING been called on, a few years ago, to make frequent journeys between this country and the Riviera, the author was greatly impressed with the extraordinary variety and abundance of the ancient architectural monuments of Provence. This country was found to contain not only special styles of Mediæval Art peculiar to itself, but likewise an epitome of all the styles which have prevailed in Southern Europe from the time of the Romans. It proved to be especially prolific in examples of Roman Art from the age of Augustus till the fall of the Empire. It also comprises a valuable series of buildings illustrative of the transition from Classic to Mediæval times. These are succeeded by a rich and florid development of Romanesque, accompanied by a plain style which existed parallel with it—both being peculiar to this locality. The remains of the Castellated Architecture are also especially grand and well preserved; while the picturesque towns, monasteries, and other structures of the Riviera have a peculiar charm and attraction of their own.

These Architectural treasures being comparatively unknown, it is believed that a popular work bringing their leading features into notice will be not unacceptable to all lovers of architecture as well as to the numerous visitors to the south of France, and may be of use in directing attention to a most interesting department which has hitherto been to a great extent overlooked.

A proper history of Provence has unfortunately not yet been written. A short account, derived from various sources, of the state of the country from early times and during the Middle Ages is therefore prefixed to the description of the Monuments, so as to explain the historical conditions under which the Architecture of Provence was developed, and to show its connection with that of other countries and times.

The author has to acknowledge the valuable aid he has received from the excellent notes on the Architecture of the country by Prosper Mérimée in his “Voyage dans les Midi de la France” (1835),—a work which, even at the early date of its publication, anticipated many of the results more recently arrived at.

The comprehensive and invaluable “Dictionnaire Raisonné” of Viollet-le-Duc has also been of much service, and is frequently referred to.

Most of the illustrations are from drawings and measurements made by the author on the spot, and these generally bear his initials. But where thought advisable for fuller illustration some of the drawings are taken from photographs; from Henry Révoil’s beautiful work on the “Architecture Romane du Midi de la France” (1873); and a few from other sources as mentioned in the text.

Special thanks are due to Professor Baldwin Brown for his kindness in revising the proof sheets, and for the valuable suggestions he has made.

Edinburgh, October 1888.

ERRATA.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

[I. Introductory.]

The Architecture of South of France comparatively little known, [1]; contrast of North and South in climate, buildings, &c., [3]; Provence a very ancient and independent State, [4]; and scene of important historical events, [5].

[II. Early History of Provence, and its Condition during the Middle Ages.]

Colonised by Phœnicians, 1100 B.C.—Greek culture introduced, [7]; occupied by the Romans about [100] B.C., [8]; became their favourite province, [9]; overrun by Visigoths in fourth century, [10]; Roman and Greek colonies were in cities, and the revived government also municipal, [11]; the Church the chief instrument of organised government, [12]; monasteries established, [13]; anarchic condition from fifth to eighth century, [14]; invasion of Saracens, [15]; attempt to establish a “Holy Roman Empire,” [16]; revival under Charlemagne, [18]; growth of the monasteries, Cluny, [20]; Citeaux, [22]; the Crusades, [23]; effects of the above on Architecture, [24].

[III. Political History of Provence.]

Fall of the Empire in fifth century. Kings of Provence from sixth to tenth century, [26]; Kingdom of Arles, [27]; Raymond Béranger becomes Count of Provence, [11], [12]; independence of cities attacked, [27]; Albigensian crusade, [28]; in 1245 Charles of Anjou becomes Count of Provence, [29]; Queen Joan; 1480, King René dies and Provence becomes part of France, [30].

[IV. Description of Classic Buildings.]

The Architecture of Provence naturally divided into a Classic and a Mediæval period—which best considered separately, [32]; the Roman period, [33]; Paris, Autun, capricious preservation of Classic monuments, [34]; Lyons, Vienne, [35]; Temple of Augustus and Livia, remains of Forum, [37]; the pyramid, [38]; Vienne restored, [39]; Orange, [40]; the theatre, [42]; triumphal arch, [45]; other triumphal arches at Cavaillon, [47]; St Remy, [48]; mausoleum at St Remy, [50]; Arles, history, [51]; amphitheatre, [52]; mode of protecting spectators in ditto, [54]; obelisk, Place d’Hommes, Tour de la Trouille, [56]; Alyscamps, [57]; sculpture in museum, [59]; Nimes, history, [64]; amphitheatre, [65]; Maison Carrée, [68]; statue of Venus, [71]; Nymphæum, [72]; Tour Magne, [73]; Roman gates, [74]; Pont du Gard, [76]; the “Camargue” and the “Crau,” [77]; St Chamas, Roman bridge at, [77]; Vernégue, temple at, [78]; paucity of classic remains at Marseilles and Narbonne, [79]; Pomponiana, [80]; Le Luc, [80]; Fréjus, history, [80]; gate of Gaul, amphitheatre, theatre, aqueduct, [82]; Via Aurelia, [83]; aqueduct of Clausonne, Antibes, Vence, [84]; Cemenelum, [86]; Turbia, [87].

[V. Transition Period.]

Transition from Classic to Mediæval Architecture, [90]; principles of Greco-Italian design, trabeate as opposed to the arch, [91]; gradual introduction and development of the latter, [92]; trabeate features dropped, [93]; early Christian architecture a continuation of that of Rome, [94]; the basilica, [95]; the baptistery, [96]; San Vitale, [96]; Byzantine edifices, the dome, [97]; St Mark’s, Syrian churches, [98]; early churches in the West—Romanesque varieties, [99]; attempts to vault—San Miniato, [100]; Notre Dame du Pré, Le Mans; form of vaulting in Provence, [102]; in Aquitaine, [103]; St Front, Perigueux, [104]; the dome and single nave characteristic of the South, [105]; varieties of style, influence of Roman remains, [105]; powerful in Provence, [106]; shewn in campaniles, baptisteries, and especially sculpture, [107]; supposed Byzantine influence—the pointed arch, [107]; used for simplicity of construction, [108]; Burgundian style, imitative of nature, [109]; the severe style of the Cistertians, [110]; the second style of Provençal art; the two periods described, [111]; growth of lay element, [112]; traditional ecclesiastical forms abandoned and new natural forms adopted, [113]; Northern Gothic developed, [114]; Gothic applicable to all requirements, [115]; domestic and castellated Architecture, [116]; origin and growth of the latter, [117]; peculiarities in the South, [118]; recapitulation, [119]; place of Provençal Architecture, [120].

[VI. Description of Mediæval Buildings.]

Description of Mediæval buildings—Lyons, the Ainay, [121]; the cathedral, [122]; Vienne, St André-le-Bas, and St Pierre, [124]; cathedral, [126]; ancient houses, [127]; Valence, Maison des Fêtes, [127]; castle of Crussol, monastery of Cruas, [128]; church of Cruas, [132]; Montélimar, Viviers—commencement of Provençal examples, St Paul-trois-châteaux, [134]; St Restitut, Pont St Esprit, [136]; Courthézon, Avignon, [137]; history, [138]; Notre Dame des Doms, [139]; imitation of Roman work, [141]; palace of the Popes, [143]; history, [144]; description of, [145]; walls of town, [148]; gates, [151]; Pont St Bénezet, [151]; tower of Villeneuve, [154]; castle of St André, [155]; gatehouse, [156]; curtains, [161]; guard rooms on walls, [162]; church of Villeneuve, [163]; churches of Avignon, the Beffroi, abbey of St Ruf, Priory of St Veran, [164]; Vaison, [165]; Carpentras, Venasque, Pernes, Le Thor, Cavaillon, [167]; Le clocher de Molléges, [168]; Tarascon, history, Ste Marthe, [168]; castle, [170]; houses, gateway, [172]; Beaucaire castle, [173]; triangular keep, [176]; oratory, [178]; Les Baux, [179]; the town—the bas-reliefs, [180]; account of the family, [181]; St Gabriel, [182]; Arles, St Trophime, [183]; includes examples of all periods of Provençal Architecture—the Cistertian nave, [184]; the west portal, [187]; the cloisters, [188]; the Alyscamps, St Honorat, [191]; prosperity of Arles after union to France—Renaissance palaces, [192]; Mont-Majour, Hermitage, [194]; church, [196]; cloister, [199]; chapel of Ste Croix, [199]; the keep, [203]; St Gilles, Abbey church, [204]; interrupted by Albigensian crusade, [205]; portal, [206]; sources of Provençal art, [210]; Les Saintes Maries, [212]; Marseilles, St Victor, [213]; Aix-en-Provence, St Sauveur, [217]; cloisters, [219]; “Les Villes Mortes du Golfe de Lyon,” [220]; Montpellier, Maguelonne, [222]; Béziers, [222]; St Nazaire, [224]; Fountain, [227]; house in town, [228]; Puisalicon, St Pierre de Reddes, St Martin de Londres, [229]; Narbonne, history, [230]; cathedral, [231]; its fortifications, [232]; Archbishop’s palace, [233]; the keep, [234]; St Paul, the Lagunes, the Pyrenees, Perpignan, [235]; the castellet, cathedral, [236]; citadel, &c., Elne, [239]; cathedral, [240]; the unfinished chevet, the campanile, [241]; the cloisters, [244]; Carcassonne, [244]; history, [245]; towers of the Visigoths, [246]; the porte Narbonnaise—the barbican and its defences, [252]; the walls and towers, [254]; St Nazaire, [257]; Aigues Mortes, [260]; Canal, [261]; walls and gateways, [264]; Porte de Nimes, [266]; Tour de Constance, [268]; Tour Carbonnière, [269].

Eastwards from Marseilles—Toulon, [270]; Hyères, [271]; castle, [272]; St Paul, [273]; examples of Cistertian style, [274]; Cannet, [275]; abbey of Thoronet, [276]; the cloisters, [278]; remarkable details, [280]; chapter house, [281]; St Maximin, [282]; Fréjus, cathedral and Bishop’s palace, [281]; fortified, [289]; baptistery, [291]; “Pantheon” at Riez, [293]; the cloisters, Fréjus, [296]; Brass lamp, [298]; doorways in town, [299]; district of Les Maures, how to visit, [300]; St Tropez, fish market, [301]; Grimaud, castle, [302]; La Garde Freinet, St Raphaël, the Esterelle mountains, [304]; Napoule, [305]; St Peyré, Mont St Cassien, [307]; Cannes, [308]; history, Tour du Chevalier, [310]; St Anne, [314]; Notre Dame d’Espérance, [317]; Iles de Lérins, [319]; St Honorat, cloisters, [320]; Ste Trinité, [320]; St Sauveur, [323]; castle of St Honorat, [324]; style of lower cloister, [330]; style of upper cloister, [334]; additions, [340]; Ste Marguérite, [343]; Vallauris, [344]; Le Cannet, [347]; Mougins, Notre Dame des Vie, [348]; Auribeau, [350]; Grasse, [351]; cathedral, [353]; keep tower, [354]; Renaissance, [357]; l’Oratoire, [357]; St Césaire, [359]; château de Tournon, [363]; Montauroux and Callian, [364]; Le Bar, [366]; Gourdon, [367]; Tourettes, [369]; Antibes, [371]; two keep towers, [373]; Cagnes, castle, [376]; castle of Villeneuve-Loubet, [378]; history, [381]; tower of La Trinité, [382]; Biot, [387]; St Paul-du-Var, [392]; approach to, [393]; Architecture of shops and houses, [395]; staircase, [397]; gateway, [398]; church, [400]; remarkable keep-tower, [401]; Vence, [407]; cathedral, [409]; keep towers, [411]; column, [413]; commandery of St Martin, [414]; destruction of the Templars, [417]; Nice, history, [418]; Cimiès Cross, [421]; castle of St André, [422]; Villefranche, Eza, [422]; La Turbie, [428]; gateways, [430]; Monaco, [432]; history, [433]; Ducal Palace, [434]; Roquebrune, [437]; Mentone, [438]; Gorbio, Ste Agnes, Castellar, [441]; boundary of Provençal Architecture, [441]; Ventimiglia, [445]; Dolce Aqua, [445]; Pigna, [448]; San Remo, [449]; Taggia, [450]; Bussana, Oneglia, &c., [451]; Albenga, [452]; Genoa, [455].

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

SKETCH MAP TO ACCOMPANY “THE ARCHITECTURE OF PROVENCE AND THE RIVIERA.”

I.

THE beautiful buildings of the North of France are as well known to all English lovers of architecture as many of the edifices of our own country, and every one is more or less acquainted with them.

The various styles which have prevailed there—whether Gothic or Renaissance, Ecclesiastical, Castellated or Domestic—have all been fully illustrated and rendered familiar by numerous admirable works, both French and English. Besides, being so near our own shores, and lying as it does, between England and Paris, this part of the country is easily accessible, and is much visited by English tourists and students of architecture.

The various styles of Northern France, too, have many points of resemblance to those on this side of the channel; and there thus exists a feeling of sympathy between the two which renders the study of both, and a comparison of their similarities and differences, particularly interesting to the English observer.

All these circumstances have contributed to make the great cathedrals of Amiens, Beauvais, Rouen, Rheims, and Chartres familiar and attractive; while the picturesque towns of Northern France, with their quaint half-timbered houses, and the no less picturesque costumes of the inhabitants, are constantly brought before us in the charming representations of our artists.

The ancient castles of Normandy and Northern France, such as the Châteaux d’Arques, Gaillard, and Falaise, are as closely connected with English as French history; and as the dwellings of our Plantaganet Kings, and the scene of many important events in their lives, they claim even more attention at our hands than they have yet received.

But the South of France is a comparatively unknown country. It is much less frequented by our countrymen than the North, and its buildings and scenery rarely form the subject of our artists’ paintings. It is indeed true that a very large number of English people winter in the Riviera or at Pau; but these visitors are all desirous to perform their migration at a single flight, and to move, as by a magic spell, unconscious of the horrors of the middle passage, from the gloom of the dreary winter of England to the bright sunshine and lovely landscape of the South. That this should be the case is perhaps scarcely to be wondered at, so many of the visitors being themselves delicate or in company with invalids. But for their own sakes it is much to be regretted, as they thus pass through a great deal of fine and novel scenery without observing it, and catch but a passing glimpse of some of the most ancient and interesting cities, churches, and castles in Europe. It must, however, be confessed that the intervening district between the North and South is not a pleasant region in mid-winter. Between Lyons and Marseilles the cold is frequently very intense, and the whole valley of the Rhone suffers from the fierce and bitter “mistral” which sweeps down it from the region of the Cevennes Mountains on the north-west. To enjoy a tour in the valley of the Rhone on the way out to the Riviera one must start earlier than usual, so as to make the October weather available, or delay till the return journey in spring.

The Englishman travelling southwards for the first time is chiefly struck with the entire change in the aspect of the scenery, the vegetation, the style of the buildings, the colour of the soil and hills, the brilliant sunshine, and the clear blue sky, which everywhere meet the view in descending the Rhone. This is especially the case in going south by the night train from Paris. Soon after leaving Lyons daylight commences, when the traveller awakes to find himself in a new zone. All the surroundings are transformed: instead of the sombre sun and foggy atmosphere of the North, he enjoys the bright light and breathes the clear air of the South, and finds around him, instead of bare trees and frozen herbage, vineyards and gardens still rich with the lovely tinted foliage of autumn.

The buildings in these gardens and fields particularly strike the eye of the architect. They are so unlike what he has been accustomed to, and left behind only a few hours ago. The houses of timber-framed work, with their steep roofs covered with slates or flat tiles, and the snug homesteads of England and the North of France, have entirely vanished; and in their stead only small square or oblong erections are to be seen scattered here and there through the fields, with plastered and tinted walls, and covered with tiled roofs of the ribbed Italian pattern, all laid at flat slopes, and generally having one side of the roof much longer than the other.

At Avignon the change of aspect is even more complete. “On arriving at Avignon,” says Prosper Mérimée, “it appeared to me that I had left France behind. Landing from the steamboat I had not been prepared by a gradual transition for the novelty of the spectacle which presented itself; the language, the costumes, the aspect of the country, everything appears strange to one coming from the centre of France. I believed myself in the middle of a Spanish town. The crenellated walls, the towers furnished with machicolations, the country covered with olives and plants of a tropical vegetation, recalled Valencia, &c.”

Not less great than the differences in climate and in the aspects of nature, are those of the arts of the North and South; and these diversities in nature and art, although now all embraced within the compass of one great and united country, are indications of the political differences which, in former times, existed between the various portions of it. The growth of France as a kingdom has been slow and gradual. Not to refer to changes which have occurred in our own times to modify the extent of her surface, it should be remembered that Provence was no part of France till the fifteenth century. It was not till 1481, in the time of Louis XI., that Provence passed under the rule of the King of France.

During the earlier and more important epochs of the architectural revolutions in that province, it formed an independent State, and was in advance, in art and literature, of its northern neighbours. In considering the history of its architecture, it is important that this should be kept clearly in view. We shall see, as we glance rapidly over the history of the Southern provinces, that, in most respects, the development of the civilisation of the South differs from that of the Northern kingdom, and that the growth of the architecture naturally follows the progress of the respective countries. The art of the South, although it reached maturity earlier than that of the North, was also the first to decay; and, as the Northern Franks spread their arms over the South, and bit by bit got possession of the land, so their noble and vigorous style of architecture accompanied them, and, to a great extent, superseded the older and more finished, but less expansive, styles of the southern provinces.

But the country we are dealing with has a history which extends back for hundreds of years before the names of Gaul or France were heard of. This region has in all ages formed a centre for the reception of the culture and arts of the various nations of the Mediterranean, and from which these have again been radiated to the remoter countries of the West. Its reminiscences thus carry us back to the dawn of history, some three thousand years ago, when we find the coast in the hands of the Phœnician navigators, by whose commercial and naval activity it could not fail to be greatly influenced. To the Phœnicians succeeded the Greeks, who colonised the country, and infused into it that spirit of Grecian culture and art of which it was long the home. The Romans next took possession of the land, and, under their dominion, it became a favourite province, and was lavishly enriched with the productions of the magnificent architecture of the Empire.

Amidst the horrors of the barbarian irruptions which followed the fall of the Empire, this fortunate province succeeded in maintaining some relics of Roman civilisation; and when the dawn began to appear after the terrible night of the Dark Ages, it was amongst the first to show signs of life and revival. In the South, song and literature, encouraged by contact with the Saracens of Spain, sprang up and flourished ere, in the North, the struggle for existence had produced a settled condition in the land. Here too the Christian Church took an early and firm hold, and has left interesting traces of its sacred edifices of very early date. It was here also that the primitive monastic societies of the West preserved the learning and enlightenment whereby the nations were subsequently revived and illumined. During the Middle Ages we shall likewise find that this remarkable region still retained its distinctive attitude as a centre of artistic and commercial energy between the East and the West. It occupied in this respect, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, a very remarkable position, and was at that time the scene of action of some of the chief political and religious movements in the West of Europe.

While connected as a fief with the “Holy Roman Empire,” it was also in close proximity to the growing power of France on the north, and to Spain and Italy on the south. For a time indeed it was under the suzerainty of Aragon, and was thus brought into contact with the science and arts of the Moors in Spain. From Italy again it received an impulse from the energy of the growing Republics of that country; while it also felt only too terribly and effectively the sway and power of the Pope. At the same time it became the chief entrepôt of the growing traffic from the East, and the highway by which the artistic and other products of the Levant were dispersed through France and the North of Europe.

The importance of this region was at that period immense, but in course of time it gradually diminished, until at length the tide of influence became reversed. The increasing power of France overshadowed the South, and the policy and arts of the North gradually encroached upon and finally absorbed it.

Having to investigate the architecture of a region so rich in historic and artistic records, it may be well, before considering its monuments in detail, to glance a little more fully at the historic conditions under which the various styles we shall meet with were produced and developed. We shall thus be the better able to understand and appreciate their place and significance in connection with the growth of the architecture.

II.

THE history of the littoral of the Mediterranean goes back to the earliest dawn of maritime enterprise.

The coast was visited by the Phœnicians, those first and adventurous merchants and navigators of the Levant, who pushed their commerce even as far as the shores of distant Britain. Carthage was one of the Tyrian Colonies, and so also was Cadiz, founded about 1100 B.C.

The Phœnicians established many cities and ports on the coast, such as Illiberris, Narbonne, and Marseilles, and carried on a considerable trade with them. Some of these have entirely perished, while in the remainder only a few traces have been found of their Phœnician origin.

The next navigators who explored the Riviera were the Greek colonists from Phocæa, itself a Grecian colony on the coast of Asia Minor, the inhabitants of which were forced to leave their country by the invasion of the Persians under Cyrus.

These adventurers, after establishing themselves in Corsica, spread to other parts of the coast. They settled about 600 B.C., by treaty with the natives, at Massilia or Marseilles. Owing to its fine rock-sheltered harbour, and from its proximity to the mouth of the Rhone, which then formed the highway to the extensive and populous country lying to the northwards, this colony soon grew into a flourishing seaport. In course of time the Massiliotes became rich, and acquired extensive lands around their town. They also spread their canvas over the neighbouring seas, and established numerous colonies all along the coast, such as Narbonne, Antibes, Nice, Monaco, &c.

The Phocæans brought with them from their native home, and introduced wherever they went, their Greek tongue, together with their Grecian culture and love of Art.

The government of their towns was founded on the pattern of that of Phocæa, the people choosing a council of 600, a committee of whom formed the executive.

They had also schools and colleges for the teaching of grammar and letters, and the encouragement of science and art.

The language, civilisation, and culture of the whole of the Massiliote towns were thus entirely Greek, and gave a Grecian character to the first enlightenment of Southern Gaul; a circumstance which left a distinct trace in the artistic style of the country, even under the Empire, just as in Sicily and southern Italy, the settlement of the Greek colonists in those countries produced a similar result.

The Massiliotes, being rivals of the Carthaginians as merchants and navigators, naturally took part with the Romans in their Punic wars, furnished them with ships, and became their allies.

In 154 B.C. the Ligurian tribes of South Gaul rose against the Massiliote colonies, and the latter in their turn applied to their Roman allies for assistance. This formed the first introduction of the Roman Legions into Gaul. Other disputes with the native tribes arose, and in 123 B.C. C. Sextus Calvinus completed the subjugation of the Salyes, and founded the first Roman settlement in transalpine Gaul at Aquae Sextiae (now Aix), where he had found the warm springs attractive.

The road from Italy into Gaul by the sea-coast was thus secured, and a way opened for further conquest.

In 118 B.C. Q. Fabius Maximus and C. Domitius Ahenobarbus defeated the Avernes and Allobroges, and became masters of the Southern Celts. A Roman colony was then established at Narbo Martius (Narbonne), to secure the country and protect the road into Spain.

During the civil war Massilia espoused the cause of Pompey, a course which led to the town being besieged and taken by Caesar. Massilia was then Romanized and lost her colonies, but she still retained her letters and arts, and her schools continued to flourish under the Empire.

By the year 50 B.C. the whole of Gaul had been subdued by Julius Caesar. Colonies were established by him and his successors at Arles, Orange, Vienne, and all the important Gallic towns, and the country was thus brought under Roman rule and influence. Traces of the gradual passage from Greek to Roman culture are to be found in the monuments of the earlier centuries of the Christian era. This is observable in the change from the Greek to the Latin language, the Greek names assuming a Latin form and being inscribed in Roman characters.

Under Rome the towns of Gaul were adorned with the profusion of splendid public buildings universal throughout the Empire, every town being provided with its Forum and Temples, its Theatre, Amphitheatre, Baths, Aqueducts and Triumphal Arches. The style of architecture adopted was naturally that of the Romans, but in many buildings and sculptures of the early centuries, a strong Greek feeling may be detected. This is also the case at Pompeii, in Southern Italy, which was likewise originally a Greek colony.

During the second and third centuries, South Gaul gradually became entirely Romanized, and was the favourite province of the Empire, with the seat of the prefect at Trèves. In the first brilliant period of the Empire, her extensive conquests added to her strength, both in supplying men for her armies, and wealth for the embellishment of her cities. Hence the magnificent display of public buildings then erected everywhere throughout the Roman world. But it also tended to her enervation through luxury and superfluity. This gradually encouraged the growing corruption of the Empire, and caused continually fresh demands on the provinces to feed the central craving and consumption—while with luxury the strength of Rome relaxed, and she became unable in return to extend to the provinces the support they required.

This weakness went on, gradually increasing, till in the fifth century the country fell an easy prey to the hordes of Barbarians who then poured in upon it. In the fourth century the Visigoths had burst over Southern Gaul, and settled in the fertile plains between the Pyrenees and the Garonne. That part of the country being well peopled and civilised, and the conquerors comparatively small in number, they were in course of time, to a great extent, absorbed into the general population. The civilisation and polity of the Romans thus continued to preserve a comparatively uninterrupted course in the south-west of Gaul.

It is a peculiarity of all the Greek and Roman colonies, as compared with those of modern times, that they were established in cities. In the cities were centred all the life and movement of the ancient world. The land of course had to be cultivated, but that was done by bands of slaves led out from the towns. The open country was uninhabited, and except within a short distance from the towns, lay waste and uncultivated. The form of government exercised in the various states, was founded on that of the towns. The supreme power of Rome herself, with all her wide-spread command, was but an extended municipal authority, and every town was in this respect a repetition of the capital on a small scale. As the conquests of Rome extended, this form of government was found inadequate to the control of the numerous nations finally comprised under Roman sway.

The Empire, with its stronger grasp and centralised control, with its multitude of functionaries, all appointed by and in constant relation with a central will, alone enabled the existence of Rome to be continued for some centuries.

But when the Empire also finally decayed and fell, the old municipal principle again came to the front. As the colonies had been founded in cities, so when the Imperial system gave way, the city again asserted itself; and in Southern Gaul, where the barbarians had been civilised, municipal authority prevailed, and each town became an independent little State—the natural tendency of these municipalities being to detach themselves, and to watch jealously the proceedings of their neighbours.

This municipal principle is a leading characteristic of the Middle Ages in Italy and Southern Gaul, and distinguishes these countries from the Northern provinces. Traces of it are still very apparent in Italy and Provence, and contribute greatly to the picturesque character of these provinces. There even yet the soil is to a great extent cultivated by peasants, who dwell together in crumbling old cities perched on the tops of hills, and surrounded with ancient walls. Daily the men, women, and mules descend to their labour in the fields, till the evening, when they may be met toiling up the steep and rocky paths to a well-earned rest in their ancestral town.

While in the Southern provinces the Empire was thus dying from exhaustion, and the little isolated municipal states of the towns remained the only representatives of civil government left in the land, in Northern Gaul the invasions of the barbarians were much more frequent and numerous, so that almost every trace of Roman civilization was obliterated. But in the midst of all this decay and destruction of general government a new organising and centralising power was arising, in the form of the Christian Church. After passing through the fiery trials of the first three centuries Christianity had been adopted by Constantine in A.D. 313; and by the end of the fourth century the church had become an extensive and united institution, with a well organised hierarchy of clergy, revenues of its own, and provincial, national, and general councils. The vigour of the administration of the church system was conspicuous in the general laxity, and the control of affairs naturally fell into the hands of the ecclesiastical authorities—the priests and bishops. Their jurisdiction was officially recognised, and under the codes of Theodosius and Justinian the control of municipal affairs was remitted to the clergy and bishops, who were thus for a time in their respective cities the representatives of government and order.

From the date of Constantine till the overthrow of society, Barbarism, Paganism, and Christianity went on side by side. While civilisation remained the schools continued, Christians of antique learning and Pagan students discussed together the same problems of philosophy, and the Fathers endeavoured to reconcile them with Christianity. But as successive waves of Barbarians rushed over the land, drowning all before them, almost every semblance of learning was swept away. Hence arose a desire on the part of learned men to retire from the anarchy and insecurity of the conditions around them to some safe retreat, where they might converse on and study in peace those high problems which occupied their minds. These societies, in the natural course of events, were by degrees converted into monasteries. The celebrity of the Eastern ascetics and devotees had penetrated to Western Europe, but the solitary form of religious observance did not at first meet with much encouragement there. Societies of recluses were then, however, also common in the East, and the Eastern monastery was the form adopted by the Western recluses as their model. But monasteries were not at this time religious societies, nor were the monks in Holy orders. They were simply associations of laymen who wished to retire from the confusion and turmoil into which all civil government was thrown, and find peace for study and quiet for contemplation. Such was the famous monastery of the Lérins, founded early in the fifth century by St Honorat, on an island off the coast near Cannes, which soon became the most celebrated school of learning and piety in Southern Gaul, and was as great a blessing to the countries of the Mediterranean as the similar colony of St Columba at Iona was to the North of Britain.

It is easy, however, to fancy how, in the midst of the strife and unrest of the fifth and sixth centuries, such societies tended to become religious, and thus obtain protection from the Church. This they were finally compelled to do, although at the sacrifice of their liberty, by placing themselves under the authority of the bishops, where alone they could find rest and safety. For the Barbarians, many of whom were already Christians, stood in awe of the Church, and the Church strove to secure her ascendancy by maintaining the independence of the spiritual power, and the incapacity of the temporal powers to interfere with it; a doctrine which afterwards led to the terrible struggle for supremacy between the temporal and spiritual powers, represented on the one hand by the Emperor, and on the other by the Pope, a struggle which lasted so long, and involved so many cities in the horrors of the factions of the Guelphs and Ghibellines.

During the fearful reign of anarchy and destruction which prevailed in the sixth and seventh centuries, when all security for life and property had disappeared, and the armed hand of the Barbarian bore down all rule and order before it, the authority of the Bishops likewise gave way. Their Sees were invaded by Goths and Franks, who assumed their titles and drew their revenues. The fate of the monasteries was similar. The invaders seized the seats of the abbots, and the recluses were dispersed. Everywhere nothing but decay and disintegration prevailed. No wonder then, that monuments of this period are rare; the marvel is that any human structures should have survived the shock of universal ruin and destruction. Only a few of the more massive Roman monuments, built as if to last for ever, were able to withstand the tornado. The small and modest Christian edifices have been almost entirely swept away; but fortunately a few rare vestiges have been preserved within our district, sufficient to indicate the nature of the early Christian Architecture under the Empire.

By the eighth century the Barbarian invaders of Gaul had become somewhat settled in their new possessions, and had abandoned their original wandering mode of life. A certain nominal supremacy had always been accorded to the Merovingian Kings of the Franks, but the royal power, together with the title, had now passed into the stronger and more active hands of the Carlovingians, under whom it grew into a distinct royal authority.

At this time a new danger from an unexpected quarter threatened the slowly reviving prospects of the West, and seems for the moment to have had the effect of uniting all the otherwise discordant elements for the purpose of resistance to the common foe. This was the invasion of the Saracens from the South. These warlike zealots had, after over-running and destroying the Roman civilisation of Northern Africa, passed over into Spain, and in 719 they crossed the Pyrenees and invaded Southern Gaul. The old Roman cities were at that time in a comparatively settled and prosperous condition, when their tranquility was thus rudely interrupted. The whole country was devastated by the Saracen invaders, the towns were besieged, and in most cases taken and destroyed. We shall find, as we proceed, that there is scarcely one which does not bear the mark of the destructive hand of the Saracen. The overwhelming flood was, however, at length stemmed by Charles Martel in 732 at Tours, when the Moors were completely defeated and driven back beyond the Pyrenees. This great victory gave repose for a time; and thinking men being weary of the long night of Anarchy which had so long oppressed them, began to look round for some principle by which rule and order might again be restored. Any durable and fixed system would be better than the fluctuation and uncertainty so long experienced. After so many changes and so much diversity of government, the principle of unity naturally presented itself to men’s minds. The tyranny of the Empire was forgotten under the more crushing oppressions of all kinds which had since had to be submitted to; while its unity and strength were remembered, and people began to long for what now appeared to be “the good old times” of the Empire. It was agreed that the only satisfactory form of government was one which, like the Empire, should include the whole Roman world. This was considered to be in accordance with the nature of things. As there is one God, so there should be one Emperor to represent Him on earth as temporal ruler, and one Pope to represent Him in matters spiritual as the head of the Church. And by a remarkable coincidence this idea came to be realised about A.D. 800, in the person of Charlemagne, who extended his sway over nearly the whole of Western Europe. What rendered possible at that time the apparent fulfilment of the dream of universal temporal and spiritual government, was the fact that during Charlemagne’s time these two powers recognised that they could be of considerable service to one another, and were consequently on very friendly terms. As Charlemagne was now the supreme temporal Emperor, so the Bishop of Rome had also fully established his supremacy in the Church. This had been brought about by various fortunate circumstances—by his occupying the See of the great city whose name was still a power, and where the Bishop held the old municipal authority and rule which had there been less disturbed by the invasions of the Barbarians than elsewhere; by his importance as a suzerain, being a very extensive proprietor in Italy and Gaul; and by means of the influence of missionaries sent direct from Rome by the Pope to Britain and Germany, where the converts, being thus brought into immediate connection with Rome, naturally gave their support to the Pope as head of the Church.

The Papal sanction had now become usual, and was considered necessary by Kings, to their establishment on the throne—especially in Germany, where Papal supremacy so fully reigned. But while the King required the Pope’s countenance, the Pope also was most desirous to obtain the aid of the temporal power, in order to overthrow the authority of the Lombards in the North of Italy, and to obtain possession of the Exarchate.

Their requirements thus fitted in with one another, so that at the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor by Pope Leo, in the year 800, the supremacy and unity of the two heads of affairs, in matters spiritual and temporal, seemed to be complete, and the Holy Roman Empire to be established on a secure and permanent basis.

After the time of Charlemagne, however, great disruptions of his empire ensued; but the idea of a central power took root, and although not developed according to the original conception, it led in time to the formation of the various nations which now occupy the different countries of Western Europe.

The idea of an universal Holy Empire deserves special attention in connection with Architecture. The same causes as led to this conception would also prevail with regard to the art, and especially the style of Architecture to be followed in the Empire. This we shall find there is reason to believe was the case, and that up to this time, and even till the tenth century, the churches were apparently erected in one traditional style, more or less followed in the whole of the Western Empire; whereas after the above date the architecture diverges into various national varieties in the different countries into which Europe was then sub-divided.

Under Charlemagne a wonderful revival took place in Letters, Arts, Schools, and Religion—the first dawn after the long night of anarchy. In Italy, Provence, and Aquitaine, where the towns had preserved something of the Roman municipal rule, and of the manners, letters, and arts of the Empire, Literature and Art began slowly to improve and revive. The relics of Roman culture which they possessed, together with the constant intercourse of the dwellers in the towns with one another, and the circumstance that here, as in Italy, the Nobles as well as the Burghers dwelt within the walls, all helped to bring about a more speedy revival in the South than in the North, where the Nobles dwelt apart in their isolated castles. The reminiscences of Roman luxury, and the warm and voluptuous climate, while they tended to enervate and weaken, tended also to the growth of music, song and literature. National poets arose, the predecessors of the Troubadours, who became so prominent in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

This enlightenment, combined with the nascent chivalry of the eleventh century, which introduced the worship of Woman with gallantry and the Courts of Love, formed a striking contrast to the rigid asceticism of the Burgundians, and competed strongly with the expansion of the Monastic institutions. It was the same spirit of freedom and progress which in the following century excited the suspicion and hatred of the clergy, and gave rise to the dreadful scenes of massacre amongst the Albigenses of Aquitaine, and the horrors of the Inquisition.

Architecture naturally participated in the general advancement and showed symptoms of new life. From the ninth century evidences exist of this revival in the monuments still to be found in these countries.

Charlemagne’s relations with the East were of a friendly character, and he is said to have sent to Byzantium for men of learning and science. Amongst these were no doubt Architects and Sculptors, who would thus bring with them the elements of the Byzantine influence so distinctly manifested in the early churches of the Rhineland.

The revival of the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne, although it paved the way for the new life which was to follow, was not in itself that new life. Up to this time the shadow of old Rome was still upon the nations. The Goths wondered at, and envied the great central government of the Empire, and strove to imitate and revive its power in their own persons; and for this purpose they caused the Roman Laws to be collated, and they endeavoured to administer them. This too, as we have seen, was Charlemagne’s idea. But the new life of the modern world did not look back to Rome as its model. It was glad to borrow from Rome all the laws and culture it could make available, but its central idea is not that of universal empire, but of separate and independent kingdoms. Hence the long struggle in the North between the Austrasians, who strove to impose upon the provinces their missi and officials from a central head, and the Neustrians, whose Germanic instincts of individual freedom led them to contend for the independence and liberty of action of the hereditary rulers of the various provinces—the principle which in the end prevailed and determined the condition of modern European countries.

The dream of an universal spiritual and temporal Empire was only an attempt to raise the ghost of old Rome, but the new principle now being developed of independent kingdoms marks the birth of the new modern life.

The revival of the eleventh century was further greatly aided by the Church, both secular and regular. The bishops and clergy being the best educated class in the community, were the frequent advisers of those in authority, thus leading to the proper position of the Church being recognised and maintained. The monasteries also underwent the same spirit of revival and reformation. Of this the history of the Abbeys of Cluny and Citeaux form a remarkable illustration. The Abbey of Cluny was founded about 909 A.D. by Guillaume le Pieux, duc d’Aquitaine, but Odon, the second Abbot, was the real creator of the house. He introduced the idea of subordination and order amongst monasteries, i.e., that there should be one head Abbey, with numerous others subordinate to, and dependent on it. This plan was also adopted by the House of Citeaux (the Cistercians), founded about 1100, and others. The monasteries were, however, as yet all subject to the rule of St Benedict—different orders had not hitherto been introduced, only different controlling centres. Such control and superintendence were at this time only too much needed, all discipline having been lost in the midst of the general disorder. As has already been observed, many of the abbeys had become mere castles in the hands of lay abbots, and were filled with armed men. In other cases the clerical abbots acted as lay proprietors, and commanded troops, and mixed in the quarrels of the nobles.

The Abbé Maïeul governed Cluny for the forty years preceding 994, during which time a large number of monasteries from every part of Europe, extending from Ravenna and Pavia in Italy to Tours in France, and including the ancient monastery of St Honorat de Lérins in Provence, adopted the rule of Cluny and became subject to its authority. Under this reformed rule monastic institutions began to assume a great importance and to exercise much influence in Western Europe. In the midst of disorder they were the only representatives of a well regulated government, and in fact produced the model from which modern society and order sprung. Cluny now began to feel its power, and to long for independence from the authority of the Bishops, desiring to hold from the See of Rome alone.

Abbot Hugues and his friend Hildebrand (afterwards Gregory VII.) both contended strongly for the independence of the spiritual power—a struggle ending with the final victory of the Pope over the Emperor Henry IV.

Hugues, like the other superiors of the monastic institutions, such as the Abbé Suger and St Bernard, took part in all the great affairs of the time (eleventh century). The Abbé of Cluny was invited by William the Conqueror to regulate the religious affairs of England. In Hugues’ time the dominion of Cluny extended over 314 monasteries. The Abbot-General thus became the equal of any temporal prince, and owed his allegiance only to the Pope. He struck his own coinage, and he appointed abbots to all his subject monasteries, of whom he occasionally called together a Council.

In the eleventh century the monastery, besides being a model of centralised organisation, was the only place of repose for intellectual minds. The monks also resuscitated the culture of the soil-establishing small convents, or Obédiences, in remote and neglected territories, where they cleared the ground, drained the marshes, enclosed fields, and planted vineyards. They also constructed roads and established bridges and ferries. Trades of all kinds were likewise practised and encouraged in the monasteries, and the arts of the gold and silver smith, the glazier and glass painter, the illuminator, and the carver were specially subjects of the monks’ attention. The houses of the inhabitants who carried on these trades clustered round the walls and increased in number with the importance of the monastery. The workmen consisted of tanners, weavers, curriers, and drapers, who manufactured the produce of the live stock of the abbey. Where there were mines on the property, the necessary labourers were employed; and all the ordinary trades, such as those of bakers, butchers, shoemakers, smiths, &c., were needed and supported. Schools were established, and the education of all provided for. The sick were attended to, and all travellers were welcomed and entertained.

It was natural that the monasteries, well regulated as they were, and encouraging all kinds of industries, should speedily grow rich. But it would be difficult to imagine how wealth could have been better made available for the benefit of the community at that time, and under the conditions then existing, than it was in the hands of the Benedictines.

The history of the Cistercian monasteries is similar to that of the Clunisiens. In the end of the eleventh century some monks of Molesmes, whose monastery had fallen into the greatest laxity, obtained from the Papal Legate permission to found an Abbey on rules of great strictness. Twenty monks established themselves in the forest of Citeaux, in the diocese of Châlon, on a desert territory surrendered to them by the Viscount of Beaune. The monks built an Oratory and established Rules—one of which was that they should live by the work of their hands. These monks were soon afterwards joined by St Bernard and his companions, when the rule of Citeaux took a great start. In less than twenty-five years after these twenty men began their labours in the marshy forest by reclaiming and cultivating a small patch of ground, they were represented by 60,000 Cistercian monks spread over every part of Europe. They were called in by feudal lords from all countries to clear the land, to establish industries, to rear flocks and herds, to drain the marshes, and cultivate the soil. In a short time Citeaux ruled over the incredible number of 2000 houses of both sexes, each house possessing 5 or 6 granges.

Nothing can better illustrate the immense strides made in the West during the eleventh century than the great development of these establishments, and no part of the progress then made had greater influence on Architecture. It is from this time that we may date the revival of our art, after the almost total extinction of the Dark Ages. It is evident that the very large number of new monasteries and churches now required would have a great effect in stimulating the growth of Architecture. The position of this and every other art was at that time necessarily in the hands of the monks, who alone had sufficient knowledge for the designing and decorating of any building. Under the monastic influence, however, the designs naturally became subject to rule and tradition, and tended to assume fixed forms, although these varied somewhat under the regulations of the different orders, and in different localities.

Another remarkable phenomenon, which was both an indication of the new life and religions awakening of the epoch, and had also a very powerful effect in increasing these movements, was the Crusades. The same enthusiasm which prompted thousands to devote their lives to a holy and useful existence in the cloister, stirred up in others through the eloquence of Peter the Hermit and St Bernard, a resolve to sacrifice everything to the righteous endeavour to rescue the places sanctified by the great events in our Saviour’s Life from the hands of the Infidels. Amongst the innumerable multitudes who joined in the Crusades, and visited the East, there must have been many who were able to appreciate the splendid architecture and decoration of Santa Sophia and the other great churches and buildings of the Levant; and these travellers would bring back with them fresh ideas which they would endeavour to import into the structures of the West. Besides, the eyes of all were opened and their minds enlarged by contact with the culture and refinement of the Eastern empire, where the ancient Greek and Roman civilisation had continued uninterruptedly during the centuries of darkness and barbarism which had well nigh obliterated them in the West. They also saw at Constantinople the great mart where the commerce between the East and West was concentrated, and became acquainted with the rich fabrics and beautiful art of Persia and India.

The transport of men and materials to the East, for the prosecution of the war, likewise gave a great impulse to navigation and maritime enterprise, while contact with the Saracens (then an enlightened and scientific people) taught valuable lessons to the soldiers of the cross. They especially acquired from them many improvements in the art of the attack and defence of fortifications, and in the construction of military engines, the results of which the Western nobles were not slow to avail themselves of in the great castles which they erected on their return from the Holy Land. The buildings of the Holy places themselves were naturally adopted as models, and the circular churches of the West are probably mostly imitations (although sometimes remote ones) of the church of the Holy Sepulchre (which was itself rebuilt by the Crusaders). It will be further pointed out in dealing with the history of the Architecture how the ancient Greco-Roman art had been preserved in Syria, and the direct influence it had on the Architecture of the West.

Such being the general condition of affairs, and their bearing on the art of the West of Europe up to the twelfth century, let us now look a little more closely at the progress of events in the province with which we are specially concerned.

III.

A RAPID glance at the political history of the country will further show the extraordinary condition of fluctuation and uncertainty which existed during the dismal period which followed the overthrow of the Roman rule, as well as the gradual growth of the new state of things under which the great revival of the twelfth century occurred. We shall also observe how the early renewal of civilisation in the South, aided as it was by the preservation of some relics of old Roman culture, ultimately yielded to the more vigorous life and growth of the new political system of the North.

We have seen that Aquitaine was occupied by the Visigoths in the fourth century, while Provence was still held by the Burgundians and Gallo-Romans.

In 425 Aetius made a final stand for the Roman cause, but was defeated by Theodoric, King of the Visigoths, and the last vestige of the Empire was swept away. These two powers of the South afterwards united their forces against Attila, their common foe, and drove back the Huns in 451. In 480 Arles was captured by Euric for the Visigoths, who thus became masters of Provence. In the sixth century the Franks extended their arms southwards, and under Clovis, and Gundibald, King of the Burgundians, defeated the Visigoths at Bouglé in 507.

In 511 Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths in North Italy, defeated the army of Clovis while engaged in the siege of Arles, and thus preserved the Mediterranean coast to Italy. But Provence was resigned in 536 by his successor Witiges to Theodoric, King of the Franks, who had overthrown the Burgundian Kingdom.

At the death of Clothair I. in 561, Provence was divided between his sons, Sigebert, King of Austrasia obtaining Marseilles, and Gontran of Burgundy, Arles. Under subsequent kings Provence was again reunited and again divided.

In 719 the Saracens crossed the Pyrenees and took possession of Languedoc. They subsequently united with Maurontis, the Byzantine governor of Marseilles, for the purpose of driving out the Franks, but were defeated by Charles Martel, who thus united Aquitaine and Provence to the Frank kingdom.

These Southern provinces, which, as already mentioned, were governed by municipal and ecclesiastical organisations, were too weak either to resist the inroads of the Saracens, or to defend themselves against the more vigorous discipline of the North.

At the division of the Carlovingian empire, after the death of Charlemagne in 843, Provence fell to Lothaire, along with Burgundy. In 863 it was seized by Charles the Bald, and in 879 his brother-in-law Boson, governor of Vienne, was elected King by the synod of Montale, and Provence was thus converted into a separate monarchy.

In 932 Hugo obtained the Italian kingdom, and ceded Provence to Rudolph II., who united the two Burgundies under the name of the Kingdom of Arles. This kingdom existed as a name till 1032; but Provence had in the meantime been governed by Princes whose power continually increased, till, from being appointed Governors, they became hereditary holders of the fief. Of these Princes there were several in the tenth century, who reigned under the titles of Boson I. and II., William I. (who drove out the Moorish pirates from the Fraxinet in 968) (as will be referred to in the sequel), Rothbold, William II., &c.

In 1112 Raymond Béranger, Count of Barcelona, of the house of Aragon, married the heiress of Provence, and obtained possession of the country. But Raymond of St Gilles, Count of Toulouse, one of the great leaders of the first crusade in 1096, claimed a part; and in 1130 possession of Provence was disputed between his son and Raymond des Baux, of whose family we shall hear more by-and-bye. In 1181 Raymond Béranger, who had been invested in Provence by his brother Alphonso I. of Aragon, died, and the fief reverted to Alphonso I. and II. till 1196.

In 1209 an attempt was made by Raymond Béranger, fourth Count of Provence, to destroy the independence of the cities. These had all along preserved their municipal freedom and Roman form of self-government. The governing body was elected by the citizens, the chief magistrate being originally nominated by the Byzantine Emperor, but latterly the office became vested in certain families, or was held by the bishop. In the twelfth century reforms were attempted in this as in everything else, and the citizens followed in their reforms the example of the Italian Republics, and chose a chief magistrate for life with the title of Podestà. To this officer was entrusted the command of the troops, and his chief duty was to maintain order in the town amongst the different factions which were incessantly at war with one another. The power of the Podestàs was thus considerable, and the Count found much difficulty in subduing them. The Albigenses of Avignon capitulated in 1226; and Nice, Grasse, Toulon, and Marseilles were also subsequently overcome.

The strength of the free towns had been shaken shortly before this by the terrible crusade against the Albigenses of Aquitaine. The tenets of the Christian Church in this province had always differed somewhat from those of Rome, and the jealousy of the ecclesiastics had been excited by the freedom of the life and language of this comparatively enlightened region. The Pope having now completely established the principle of the supremacy of the See of Rome, could not endure the idea of any want of conformity to his rule; and he accordingly encouraged the Romanists of the North to make war on these rebellious heretics. The enthusiasm of the Crusaders against the Holy Land had now worn off; but a crusade against the Heretics of Aquitaine had the charm of novelty, combined with the advantages of easiness of access, and the probability of abundance of booty. The crusades against the Albigenses were led by Count Simon de Montfort, who attacked and, after encountering in most cases a gallant and determined defence, destroyed the towns, and massacred the inhabitants. At Béziers alone, which fell after a protracted siege, the Abbot of Citeaux, in reporting to Innocent III., expressed regret that he had only been able to slay 20,000 heretics; but it is believed that no less than 60,000 were destroyed in that indiscriminate massacre.

The horrors of war were followed by the tortures of the Inquisition, and in the holy hands of St Dominic and his order all dissent was either exterminated or driven into other lands, there to sow the seeds which should some day spring up as a crop, which no Papal sickle could cut down.

Raymond VII., Count of Toulouse, having espoused the cause of his people, suffered with them and was compelled to do penance and to surrender, by a definite treaty with Queen Blanche in 1229, all his possessions in the Kingdom of France to her husband Louis VIII., and all in the Kingdom of Arles to the Pope’s Legate. Only a small portion was allowed him for life, and he was required to do penance by service in the Holy Land. The Pope, however, declined to accept of the Kingdom of Arles on account of its burdensomeness owing to famines. He therefore handed it over to Queen Blanche, who entrusted the administration of it to the Seneschal of the castle of Beaucaire. It was afterwards formed into the Principality of Orange and the Countship of the Venaissin.

In 1243 Raymond VII. of Toulouse was finally obliged to yield up everything to King Louis IX. The suzerainty of ancient Aquitaine was thus acquired by the Crown of France, but Provence, east of the Rhone, still retained its independence.

In 1245 the latter passed into the family of Anjou by the marriage of Charles of Anjou, brother of St Louis, with Beatrice, heiress of Provence. The towns thought this a favourable opportunity for making an effort to recover their freedom, and accordingly Arles, Avignon, and Marseilles joined in a league against Charles. Arles and Avignon submitted on his return from the East in 1251; but Marseilles, which had resisted Raymond Béranger, resolved to maintain its Republican freedom. Four years later, however, it was compelled to submit, when its fortifications were razed. In 1262 the town again rebelled, but was blockaded and reduced by famine. The ancient liberties of Marseilles were preserved, but Charles substituted in this and the other towns an officer of his own instead of the electoral Podestà. He afterwards acquired Ventimiglia and the Maritime Alps. Charles next carried his arms into Italy, and in 1266 he drove out Manfred, and took possession of the two Sicilies. He died in 1285, and left Anjou, Provence and Naples to Charles II., whose son Robert (in 1309) left a troubled heritage to his grand-daughter Joan of Naples. In 1343 Joan’s husband, Andrew of Naples, having been murdered, and Joan being suspected of complicity in the deed, her husband’s brother, Louis of Hungary, attacked and took Naples in 1347. Joan fled to Provence, and being desirous to raise money in order to recover Naples, and also wishing to be acquitted of all connection with the crime of her husband’s murder, she sold Avignon, where the Popes were then resident, to Clement VI., and obtained his acquittal.

Provence had long enjoyed a popular government with representatives in the three houses of the Clergy, Nobles, and Commons, who had control over the national purse. Queen Joan attempted to cut down these powers, and appointed an Italian as Grand Seneschal. But the nation revolted against this interference with its ancient constitution, and Louis of Anjou pressing his claim on the province, supported by an army, Joan, in order to escape from her difficulties, had to adopt him as her heir. He succeeded to the Countship in 1382, but he and his son Louis II. (1384), and grandson Louis III. (1417) were all unsuccessful in their claims on Naples. Louis III. was succeeded in 1434 by his brother René, the well known poet and painter King, who had also claims on the throne of Aragon. He died in 1480, leaving one daughter, Margaret, married to Henry VI. of England.

René bequeathed Provence to his nephew, Charles III. of Maine, who soon after died, making Louis XI. of France his heir.

In 1486 Charles VIII. declared the country united to France.

Provence thus became at length part of the kingdom of France. But the Emperor of Germany still continued his claim of suzerainty upon it, in which he was supported by the Constable, Charles of Bourbon. In pursuance of that claim, Charles V. of Spain invaded Provence in 1536, but without success. The country continued to be frequently attacked in the subsequent wars between France and Spain, but has remained part of France since the days of Louis XI.

The boundary of the province on the east remained from that time till our own day, the river Var. It was a frontier badly fortified, and ever open to attack; and we shall see what efforts were made by Francis I. to render it secure against the attempts of his enemy of Spain. In 1861 the boundary between France and Italy was extended eastwards, as far as a ravine spanned by the “Pont St Louis,” a short way beyond Mentone, thus including Nice and Mentone, formerly part of Savoy, within the French territory.

In treating of the architecture of this part of the country, we shall find that it bears in its architecture unmistakable signs of its former Italian allegiance.

IV.

THE foregoing Sketch of the history of this region shews that its architecture must belong to two entirely distinct epochs—the Roman period and the Mediæval period. It is proposed in the following description of the various edifices to treat of these two periods separately,—taking up first the buildings of the Roman period in regular sequence as they are met with in descending the Rhone from Lyons, and in the various localities along the Riviera, both west and east of Marseilles. Having thus exhausted the Roman monuments in the province, we shall return to Lyons, and repeat the journey southwards to Marseilles, and thence westwards and eastwards along the coast, taking note of the more important of the many remarkable Mediæval structures in which these localities abound.

This method will, we believe, be found to be much more satisfactory than any attempt to deal with the architecture in chronological order. That plan would be very confusing, the reader having under it to be constantly transferring himself from one region to another. By the system adopted he will at least always know where he is, and the situation of the buildings will thus be fixed in the mind. The disadvantage of this method admittedly is that structures of all the Mediæval periods are described together as they occur in each locality; but it is hoped that this disadvantage will be to some extent overcome by the introduction to the Mediæval period, in which the historic sequence and development of the architecture of the country in the Middle Ages is considered.

Following the above arrangement we shall now proceed with the description of the buildings, commencing with

THE ROMAN PERIOD.

In the North of France there are few remains of Roman buildings. This probably arises from two causes:—1st, Because before the fifth century Roman civilisation had not advanced so far in Northern as in Southern Gaul, and consequently the towns were not adorned with the same profusion of magnificent edifices;—and, 2nd, Because the Northern division suffered far more destruction than the Southern, from the invasions of the Barbarians.

At Paris some Roman vaults, parts of a Palace or Baths, are still preserved in the grounds of the Musée Cluny.

Autun is celebrated for its two fine Roman gateways, one of which (the Porte d’Arroux) is decorated with Corinthian, and the other (the Porte St André) with Ionic pilasters, features which afterwards produced a strong influence on the Mediæval Architecture of the province of Burgundy.

Autun also possesses remains of two buildings called Roman Temples, a splendid pavement of mosaic, a fine collection of statuettes, bronzes and inscriptions,—all bearing testimony to the importance of the town in Roman times. But we must pass these by without further notice, as our district lies south of Lyons.

In exploring the remains of Roman Architecture in Southern Gaul, one cannot help being struck with the extraordinary and capricious manner in which they have been preserved,—small towns like Orange and Nimes being full of Roman work, and important Roman cities like Marseilles and Narbonne having nothing left but the fragments collected in their Museums.

Avignon, the ancient Avenio, was, before the Roman occupation, one of the most important cities of the tribe of the Cavares; and under Imperial rule was no doubt adorned with splendid Temples, Amphitheatre, Theatres, and other public buildings like those of which the remains are still to be seen at Arles and Nimes. But of all such structures there is practically not a fragment now left at Avignon.

A large number of Roman antiquities from that town and vicinity have, however, been collected in the Musée Calvet, so called after the physician who founded it by bequeathing in 1810 his fine private collection to the city. The museum contains some good Greek sculpture, and a large number of coins, medals, and bronzes.

At Lyons there are a few subterranean remains of aqueducts, but no Roman Architecture.

Some time after leaving Lyons, the railway, which follows the course of the Rhone, enters a narrow pass amongst the mountains, where there is little room for more than the river and the road between the precipitous and rocky banks. The scenery is very grand, and the prospect is especially fine at a bend of the river where the ancient town of Vienne, rising high upon a bold promontory surmounted by its ruined castle, bursts upon the view.

The town itself is most interesting. Vienne was the ancient city and capital of the Alobroges before the time of Cæsar. Under the Romans it attained great splendour. Cæsar embellished and fortified it, and Augustus and Tiberius bestowed favours on it. It was also the seat of a Prætor, and had a Senate and Council, five legions, and a celebrated school. The city increased to such an extent that it became necessary to extend it on the other side of the Rhone. Vienne was divided into three towns:—Vienne the strong, containing the citadel; Vienne the rich, the town proper; and Vienne the beautiful, on the right side of the Rhone (now called St Colombe), where many fine works of art have been found. During the later Empire Vienne continued to be a place of great importance, not unfrequently the residence of the Emperors, and played a prominent part in the numerous revolutions of the times.

It was also the cradle of Christianity in the West, which, as tradition relates, was there founded by St Paul on his way into Spain. The Archbishops of Vienne became for a time Primates of Gaul.

But it was soon to encounter the usual series of disasters which overtook the Roman towns of Southern Gaul, being conquered by the Burgundians in 438, ravaged by the Lombards in 558, and destroyed by the Saracens in 737.

Boson, King of the new Kingdom of Burgundy and Provence, made Vienne his capital. But the second Kingdom of Burgundy perished in anarchy, and Vienne became the capital of a feudal province ruled by a suzerain called the Dauphin of the Viennois.

The town stands on the western slope of a hill facing the river, with two steep heights above it, viz., that of Salonica, crowned with the ruins of a Mediæval Castle, and the Mont Pipet, whose summit is surrounded with an enclosing wall and towers, which occupy the position of, and may have formed the citadel for, the Roman garrison, but the buildings have been altered in later times.

Vienne possesses several interesting Roman relics, the most important of which is the temple dedicated to Augustus and Livia ([Fig. 1]).

This building has in its time been dreadfully abused.

FIG. 1. TEMPLE OF AUGUSTUS AND LIVIA, VIENNE.

It was formerly converted into a church, and shockingly disfigured. The columns surrounding the cella were blocked up with common masonry, and, as if this was not Barbarism enough, the fluting of the columns was scraped off to make them flush with the line of the enclosing wall. The edifice has now been carefully and judiciously restored; and as a complete specimen of a temple of the Romans in Gaul is only surpassed by the “Maison Carrée” at Nimes. It is about 80 feet long by 50 feet wide. In front are six Corinthian columns, crowned with entablature and pediment, and on each side six detached columns with two pilasters in rear attached to the cella. The whole is placed on a stylobate, to which twelve steps ascend in front. The temple stood in a Forum, some of the pavement of which has been recently uncovered, and the foundations of the colonnade which surrounded it laid bare.

FIG. 2. ROMAN FORUM, VIENNE.

A large number of antique relics are here collected—amongst others, portions of shafts, and bases of columns of gigantic size, which must have belonged to a building of immense proportions. The admirably preserved and well known group of two children struggling for the possession of a bird is one of the finest objects in the collection, which also includes many interesting fragments of sculpture and architecture. Vienne possessed at least one ancient theatre, some relics of which still exist in the ranges of steps forming the seats of the auditorium.

Remains of underground aqueducts and Roman ways are also to be seen in the neighbourhood. Of the arcade of the ancient Forum there now only remain two arches and part of a vault ([Fig. 2]). The Corinthian columns are half buried in the soil, and the entablature has been heightened with a mediæval upper storey, but the colossal proportions of the original building are still very striking. Near this are some massive sub-structures and a portion of an immense staircase, the stones of which still fit as well as the day they were built.

FIG. 3. THE PYRAMID, VIENNE.

A little way south of the town, and on the level ground near the river, stands a remarkable though unfinished monument called the “needle” or “pyramid” ([Fig. 3]). The upper part consists of a tall and partly hollow square pyramid. The base is pierced with four arches, each flanked with two engaged columns, the capitals of which are only roughly blocked out. The Romans were in the habit of building thus, and executing the sculpture afterwards. The masonry is beautifully jointed and put together without cement; but the blocks have been cramped with iron, and the holes made for the purpose of extracting these cramps are unfortunately only too apparent here, as in so many other Roman edifices. There is no inscription or other indication of the purpose for which this monument was erected, but it has most probably been commemorative, and the name of Alexander Severus has been generally connected with it. Prosper Mérimée is of this opinion, and adds that “the interruption of the work might be explained by one of the revolutions so frequent in the Empire, which made men forget or denounce the memory of the person to whom divine honours had previously been paid.”

FIG. 4. VIENNE RESTORED\.

The existing remains show that Vienne must have been a town of great importance and splendour in Roman times. An attempt has been made by an architect of the district to exhibit in a drawing an illustration of what Vienne was like in the days of its glory, of which a reproduction is given in [Fig. 4]. This restoration, although to a great extent imaginary, at least serves to give some idea of the splendour of a Roman city.

The next Roman edifices of importance in descending the Rhone are found at Orange, the ancient Arausio, the capital of the Cavares. It was taken by Cæsar, and became an important Roman colony. On approaching the town by the railway, one is struck by the appearance of an immense pile of building which rears itself high above all the other structures of the place, but is at too great a distance to allow its features to be distinguished. On closer inspection this turns out to be the proscenium wall of the famous Theatre of Orange. Everyone is acquainted with the general outline of the Roman amphitheatre, but the form of the theatre is probably not generally so well known. The seats were arranged in a similar manner to those of the amphitheatre, and were almost invariably cut out of the side of a hill, but they extended only round a semicircle. These constituted the auditorium, the diameter of the semicircle opposite them being occupied with a high wall which enclosed the theatre and formed the scena, in front of which was the stage where the actors appeared. This wall or scena was generally elaborately adorned with architectural features, including a profusion of marble columns with their entablatures, niches with statues, &c. Dressing-rooms and other apartments for the actors were either within the scena, or in spaces at the ends.

The theatre of Orange corresponds with this description. The seats, rising in tiers, are hollowed out of a hill side, and where natural support was awanting, at either end, it was supplied by building walls and vaults in continuation of the rock-cut seats. The proscenium wall ([Fig. 5]) is of great size, and is a splendid specimen of Roman construction, being 335 feet long by about 112 feet high, and is built with large carefully fitted blocks without cement. This example is valuable, as the proscenium portions of

FIG. 5. ROMAN THEATRE, ORANGE.—Exterior.

ancient theatres are generally destroyed and the materials removed. Externally the wall of the scena presents a very simple appearance, but has an imposing effect from its size. The ground floor is designed with a series of arches having pilasters between them. There is a large central entrance, and two smaller side doors arranged symmetrically, and all square-headed. These probably corresponded with the internal entrances, the central one being known as the Royal doorway, because the principal actor, called the king, entered by it. The first floor is quite plain; the next floor has an arcade surmounted with an entablature, above which is a row of large corbels, the use of which is doubtful. Above these is a great gutter, then another row of corbels, and the summit is crowned with a projecting cornice. The six corbels at each end of the upper row are pierced, as if to form sockets to receive the feet of poles from which a velarium or great awning might be stretched over the theatre (as was the case at the Colosseum in Rome and other similar structures), but if so intended they could never have been used for that purpose, owing to the projection of the upper cornice. Prosper Mérimée thinks that the highest portion of the wall above the level of the upper corbel course has been an addition or early restoration, which has rendered the lower range of corbels useless, as well as the upper ones, owing to a change of plan and the introduction of a wooden roof, instead of a velarium, for the protection of the actors. At either end of the proscenium great blocks of buildings contained staircases, halls, dressing-rooms for the actors, places for the machinery, &c.

The interior of the scena ([Fig. 6]) was decorated with three storeys of columns of polished granite and white marble, now entirely broken down, but of which a large quantity of fragments is still visible, along with various carvings

FIG. 6. ROMAN THEATRE, ORANGE.—Interior.

and other works. These are collected in the proscenium, and form an interesting exhibition, giving some idea of the former richness of the decoration. The upper part of the scena carried the roof above referred to. The beams were embedded in the solid masonry, and projected over the proscenium, the apertures formed in the walls to receive them being distinctly visible. This roof has evidently been one source of the destruction of the building, as the calcined and blackened appearance of the upper part of the walls shews that it has suffered from a great fire, the materials for which could only have been furnished by a wooden roof over the proscenium.

The sketch ([Fig. 6]) shews some of the ranges of seats cut out of the rock,—those at the bottom being in a fair state of preservation; and also some of the built portion of one of the wings which united the great proscenium to the part of the auditorium cut out of the hill behind.

In the Middle Ages this theatre, as often happened with the massive buildings of the Romans, was converted into a fortification, and formed an outwork of the castle erected by the Duke of Orange on the summit of the hill above. But so solid is its construction, being composed after the Roman manner of building, of great blocks carefully fitted together without cement, that it has been able to endure for at least 1500 years, almost without change, all the destructive influences both of man and the elements.

Immediately adjoining the theatre on the west was a hippodrome, the outline of which is quite discernible from the high ground above. It seems to have run nearly the whole length of the present town, and remains of it may be traced at intervals among the houses. The length and comparative narrowness of the structure shew that it was intended for horse and chariot races, and not for gladiatorial combats and similar spectacles. Of this immense building almost the only architectural features now remaining are a large arch across one of the streets, locally, but erroneously, called a triumphal gate, and some portions of an arcade incorporated with the modern houses.

Almost everywhere in Orange antique fragments are to be found, and several statues and mosaics have been discovered.

But by far the finest relic in an artistic point of view is the well known Triumphal Arch ([Fig. 7]). It stands at the northern entrance to the town, and, considering the hard usage it has received, it is in a wonderfully good state of preservation. The arch is about 70 feet long and 70 feet in height. Such a massive building was too tempting as a fortress to be passed over in the Middle Ages, and we accordingly find it used for that purpose by Raymond des Baux, who played an important part in this country in the thirteenth century. The northern façade is best preserved. The structure, as was usual in large monuments of this nature, is pierced with a principal central arch and two smaller side arches, and is adorned with four attached Corinthian columns between the arches supporting an entablature with a central pediment. The east flank has also four similar columns placed very close together. The archivolts and frieze are enriched with sculptured figures, and the spaces over the side arches contain trophies of arms. The upper panel over the central arch is filled with a large bas-relief full of figures, but it is hard to say what scene is represented. The shields are ornamented with crescent-like forms, and on one of them the name of “Mario” can still be read, while diverse names were formerly legible on others.

FIG. 7. TRIUMPHAL ARCH, ORANGE\.

Many are the theories and disputations to which these words and ornaments have given rise, but nothing positive has been made out with regard either to the date or origin of the Arch. It has been ascribed to Tiberius, and its date fixed A.D. 21. But its style and ornament forbid this conclusion.

Mérimée thinks that the great analogy of style between the various Triumphal Arches of Provence, viz., those at Orange, St Remy, and Carpentras (to be afterwards referred to), renders probable the hypothesis which supposes them to have been erected at the same epoch and for the celebration of the same event, viz., the victories of Marcus Aurelius in Germany. The profusion of the ornament, the form of the arms, and the incorrect and pretentious character of these monuments agree well with the architecture of the second century. Mérimée also draws attention to the maritime trophies at Orange, and points out how picturesquely the rostra of the ships, the masts, oars, &c., are grouped. He believes these probably refer to naval conflicts on the Danube.

Mr Ruskin also points to the execution of the sculpture of this arch as a good example of sketching in sculpture; the shields and other arms and ornaments being surrounded with a deeply cut line, which defines their outline clearly as an artist would do with his pencil in sketching them. He considers such objects as unworthy of any more elaborate treatment.

The work of restoration has been executed with great care and success. The west side has been almost rebuilt, but with plain stone, applied merely for the purpose of preserving the rest. No attempt has been made to imitate the old work, and what remains of the ancient structure is not scraped and polished up, as so often happens in French restorations, whereby the value of the monument as an example of ancient art is entirely destroyed.

Not very far from Orange, as above mentioned, another Triumphal Arch is found at Carpentras. It is much simpler in design than that at Orange, having only one arch supported by fluted pilasters with composite caps. The whole of the upper parts above the arch are destroyed. Some sculptures still survive on the ends, representing captives chained to trophies. The very bold projection of the bas-reliefs is remarkable, and also the fact that in the sculpture distant objects are marked with a sunk line round them. This style of emphasising shadows and outlines, and also the method of doing so by means of holes drilled round objects is common in the sculpture of the lower Empire.

Part of another single arch, apparently also an arch of triumph, has been preserved at Cavaillon, but it is very sadly mutilated, and has been restored at an ancient period, when stones carved with ornaments, mouldings, and enrichments have been all mixed up in the masonry.

At St Remy (which is easily accessible by railway from Tarascon) there are also the ruins of a triumphal arch, together with a well-preserved and most interesting mausoleum ([Fig. 8]).

These monuments are the sole surviving remains of the Gallo-Roman town of Glanum Livii, a flourishing colony under the Romans, surrounded with walls and adorned with temples, aqueducts, and public buildings, of which some faint traces only now exist. The chief employment of the inhabitants was to supply stones from quarries in the neighbourhood for the buildings in Arles and elsewhere. The town was destroyed by the Goths in 480.

The triumphal arch has only one opening, which is rather low in proportion, and is flanked by fluted pillars of which the caps are gone. On each side of the arch are well sculptured bas-reliefs representing captives in chains accompanied by women. The flanks have niches, but no statues remain.

Mérimée admires the archivolt of the archway, which he calls a garland of fruit and flowers sculptured with the same perfection of imitation, with the same taste and

FIG. 8. TRIUMPHAL ARCH AND MAUSOLEUM, ST REMY\.

variety of details, as is observed in the Gothic period. The arch is about 40 feet long by 18½ feet wide and 25 feet to the under side of the vault.

The mausoleum stands a few yards from the arch. The main part is square, the lower portion forming a pedestal set upon a base, which measures about 22 feet each way, and the upper portion being an open story with four Corinthian engaged columns at the angles. The whole is crowned with a circular top composed of ten Corinthian pillars, the entablature of which supports a cupola originally covered with palm leaf scales. The height of the monument is about 60 feet. The podium is ornamented with fine bas-reliefs, which Mérimée describes as representing—(South) a hunt; (East) a Battle of Amazons; (West) the death of Patrocles; (North) a Cavalry engagement. The figures of the upper storys are also richly carved. Under the dome stand two draped statues. The following inscription is engraved on the architrave of the north side:

SEX. L.M. IVLIEI. C.F. PARENTIBUS. SVEIS.

Sextus, Lucius, Marcus, Julii, Curaverunt fieri parentibus suis—(Sextus, Lucius, Marcus, of the Julii, have caused this monument to be constructed to the memory of their relatives).

Various dates are assigned by different authors to these monuments; but probably Mérimée is right in considering the arch at least of about the same date as that of Orange.

This mausoleum and similar monuments, as will be hereafter noticed, have evidently had a considerable influence on the forms of the early Mediæval church steeples of Provence.

Arles.—We have now arrived at the capital of Roman Gaul—the famous city of Arelate or Arles. It is supposed to have been founded by the Greeks from Massilia as a trading centre, and had become an important town before the time of Cæsar. The situation occupied was a very advantageous one, being at the point of the Delta of the Rhone, where the bifurcation of the river commences. The town is also supposed to have been in communication with an interior navigable Lagoon in the time of the Romans, so that commodities could be conveyed by water with great facility in all directions. Arles thus formed a valuable mercantile centre. The population is believed to have reached 100,000. Here Cæsar had the galleys constructed which he required for the siege of Massilia. After taking that town he sent Tiberius to establish a colony at Arles. With Constantine Arles was a favourite city, and he made it the capital of Gaul. The town was at that time divided by the river into two sections, a part being on each side. These Constantine united by a bridge of boats. An abundant water supply was brought by aqueducts from the mountains, and conducted across the river by means of syphon pipes of lead, several of which have been found with the name of the maker stamped upon them, and are now to be seen in the Museum.

Ausonius calls Arles the “Gallula Roma Arelas,” and praises its hospitable ports, which received the riches of the Roman world, and spread them in turn to the cities of Gaul and Aquitania. So important a city could not escape the successive attacks of the Goths, Franks, and Saracens. By these invaders her splendid edifices were all nearly destroyed, as was entirely the fate of those at Avenio and Massilia. But Arles was not quite so unfortunate as the last named cities, and still possesses some imposing though sadly ruined remnants of her former greatness.

Of the existing remains by far the most important is the Amphitheatre. The walls forming the complete circuit and a large part of the seats of the interior are still preserved. The exterior ([Fig. 9]), according to the usual design of this class of erections, consists of two arcades superimposed on one another—the arches being separated by attached columns.

In this instance the arches are sixty in number on each story. The attached columns of the lower arcade are square pilasters with Doric capitals, and those of the upper range are round and of the Corinthian order.

FIG. 9. AMPHITHEATRE, ARLES.—Exterior.

The design may possibly have originally included an attic story; but this, if it ever existed, which seems to be doubtful, as not a single stone of it has been found, has entirely disappeared.

Mérimée points out that the mouldings and enrichments of the remainder are all carefully finished, which would not likely have been the case had the building not been carried up to its full height, as the Romans were in the habit of executing all that class of carved work after their buildings were completed—the stones for the ornament being only roughly blocked out at first. We shall meet with a quantity of this preparatory work in the Amphitheatre of Nimes, where it has been left unfinished.

The Amphitheatre of Arles, as was to be expected in the capital, is the largest building of its class in Gaul. It is built after the Roman manner, with enormous blocks of carefully cut stone set without cement, and the staircases, passages, &c., are strongly vaulted.

FIG. 10. AMPHITHEATRE, ARLES.—Interior.

The plan, as is usual in Roman Amphitheatres, is that of an ellipse, its longitudinal axis measuring 459 feet, and its transverse axis 341 feet. The seats, which were arranged in forty-three rows ([Fig. 10]), provided accommodation for 26,000 spectators. There are four principal entrances, at the North, South, East, and West, and eight other smaller doorways.

Originally this amphitheatre was probably built by Caligula or Hadrian. In the Middle Ages it was transformed into a fortress, and became the stronghold of some chief, or the citadel of the inhabitants. Four towers were at that time erected on the top of the building—three of which still remain.

The amphitheatre is said to have been restored by Charles Martel after his victories over the Saracens; and some ancient stones have certainly been used to repair the podium or barrier between the arena and the auditorium (as may still be seen).

Mérimée discusses the question, how were the spectators in this and similar buildings protected from the wild beasts which fought with one another or with gladiators by a podium such as this, not exceeding 8 or 10 feet in height?

Had the podium been high enough to afford safety, it would have prevented a large part of the audience, especially in the back rows, from seeing what passed on their side of the arena; an inconvenience which would certainly never have been endured; and his idea is, that lions or similar animals which could spring must have been confined with chains or in cages, and that only animals which do not leap, such as wild boars, might be freely baited in the open arena.

The “Château des Arenes,” as the amphitheatre was called, was almost entirely invaded and choked up with the houses of the poorer inhabitants till 1825, when it was resolved to clear out the building,—a work which required six years for its accomplishment. The structure is now in course of “Restoration.”

Besides the amphitheatre Arles also possesses some remains of its Roman Theatre. These are, however, extremely scanty, consisting chiefly of the north and south entrance doorways, and two lofty marble pillars with Corinthian caps ([Fig. 11]). The latter formed part of the ornamentation of the scena, and, when considered along with the great wall of the scena at Orange, may help to give some idea of the generally gorgeous aspect of that feature of the Roman Theatre when perfect. The plan of the orchestra, and a few rows of ruined seats, can still be discerned.

FIG. 11. ROMAN THEATRE, ARLES\.

A large number of marble fragments, composed of portions of columns, capitals, entablatures, &c., have been collected in the precincts of the theatre, and impress the spectator with a sense both of the great magnificence of the building when complete, and of the terrible and long continued series of disasters to which it has owed a demolition so complete. It should, however, not be omitted to mention that it was first dismantled by the Bishops, who carried off its marbles to decorate their churches.

The remains of three parallel walls, with a space between them, under the level of the proscenium, have given rise to various theories as to their use. The most likely view seems to be that the apertures were used for lowering the curtain into before the performances began, as was then the custom, instead of raising it, as is done in modern times. The theatre is supposed to have been seated for 16,000 spectators. Several fine sculptures, now in the museum of Arles or the Louvre, have been dug out of the ruins of this structure.

Arles possesses the only ancient Obelisk in Gaul. It stands in the “place,” opposite the entrance to the cathedral, and is set on the backs of four lions, raised upon a pedestal. It was elevated to this eminence in 1676, after having lain for long in the bed of the river. The shaft is of grey granite, 47 feet high, but it is not of an elegant form, and tapers too rapidly towards the summit. It originally formed the spina of a Roman circus, where it was found in 1389.

In the front wall of the Hôtel du Nord (in the Place d’hommes) are inserted the fragments of two Roman granite columns with Corinthian caps, and part of a pediment ([Fig. 12]). But unfortunately the traveller, while enjoying the hospitality of the patron of the “Nord,” and sleeping with his head perhaps within a few feet of these remains, cannot have the satisfaction of imagining himself a dweller in a real Roman edifice, as it is evident that they are not in their original position, but have been brought from a distance at some remote time and set up here.

There are a few remnants, close to the river, of a building said to be the Palace of Constantine, including a brick tower called “La tour de la Trouille.” This is a palace which has had many and varied occupants—passing from its Roman masters down to the Kings of the Ostrogoths and Visigoths, the Kings of the Franks, and the Kings of Arles, the “Holy Roman Emperors” (when they came here to be crowned Kings of Arles), and the Counts of Provence.

FIG. 12. PLACE D’HOMMES, ARLES\.

In Roman times there was a space to the east of the town used as a cemetery, and called the Elysii Campi, or Champs Elysées, now the “Alyscamps.” This necropolis was by tradition supposed to have been specially consecrated by our Saviour himself, and consequently became a very favourite place of burial. Princes and dignitaries of Church and State desired to rest here. Bodies committed to the river (along with the suitable burial fees) were sure to reach the Alyscamps. It was celebrated by the poets Dante and Ariosto, and became of world-wide fame. Chapels and churches were erected in the vicinity, there being no less than nineteen at one time. But the translation of the body of St Trophime, A.D. 1152, from the Alyscamps to the cathedral of Arles, seemed to take away the prestige of the former, and from that time it gradually decayed.

FIG. 13. THE ALYSCAMPS\.

During its palmy days in the early centuries, this cemetery had become greatly enriched with splendid monuments and sarcophagi, partly heathen and partly Christian, but all designed and executed after the Roman or Grecian manner. At the Renaissance these ancient classic monuments were specially prized and admired, and many of them were removed. Sarcophagi were distributed as specimens of early Christian art to Rome, Lyons, and other towns; the place was gradually deserted and destroyed, and the monuments were finally turned to common and ignominious uses such as cattle troughs and bridges over the ditches in the fields. Now the few remaining tombs have been collected and placed on each side of the road leading to the chapel of St Honorat ([Fig. 13]), where they produce from their position and their classic forms a striking resemblance to the burial places of the Romans, which lined the wayside at the entrances to their cities, such as the Appian way at Rome, and the approach to Pompeii.

FIG. 14. FROM ARLES MUSEUM\.

A large number of the finest sarcophagi have fortunately been preserved in the Arles museum. Some of them certainly belong to Pagan times, but most of them are of later date. Many are adorned with bas-reliefs, representing the hunt of the Stag or Wild Boar, Apollo and the Muses, and other classic and allegorical subjects.

FIG. 15. TOMB OF CORNELIA, ARLES\.

A museum has been established in the disused Gothic Church of St Anne, in which some fine examples of classic sculpture are preserved. Besides the Pagan sarcophagi above referred to it contains some Roman or rather Greek sculptures of considerable purity and beauty; the Grecian descent and culture of the country being distinctly observable in these monuments—just as the same Greek feeling prevails in the paintings and sculpture of Pompeii. The fragment of a statue of a female dancer ([Fig. 14]) is particularly graceful in pose and in the execution of the drapery. The sarcophagus ([Fig. 15]), with an inscription and two well carved festoons, is called the Tomb of Cornelia. [Fig. 16] shews a finely carved oak wreath and vase on the monument to the “good Goddess,” and a beautifully sculptured though mutilated bust of the Empress Livia. [Fig. 17] represents a fragment of very spirited carving of foliage said to be from the frieze of the Arc de Triomph, an amphora and a Corinthian capital.

FIG. 16. FROM ARLES MUSEUM.

The Museum also includes a large number of early

FIG. 17. FROM ARLES MUSEUM.

Christian monuments. That in [Fig. 18], representing scenes from the life of our Saviour, exhibits figures carved in the Roman manner, and wearing the Roman costume, but degraded in style,—evidently the work of the Low Empire. Christ occupies the central compartment, and four wide arches contain figure subjects,—those on the extreme right and left representing the Magdalene and Pilate, while the two central compartments contain saints bearing palm branches.

FIG. 18. FROM ARLES MUSEUM.

The arcade on this sarcophagus is supported on pillars with composite caps and bases, and shafts ornamented with flutings and twists, similar in character to the shafts of the early mediæval cloisters. The archivolt is a veritable architrave with leaf enrichment carried round the arch, and filled in with a scallop shell. It thus forms a distinct and instructive example of the manner in which the late Romans dispensed with the straight architrave, and adopted the arch springing directly from the caps of the columns, as will be more fully explained further on. It will then be shewn how this monument illustrates the transition from the leading features of the Greek trabeated style to those of fully developed Roman Architecture, and also the mode in which Roman art was continued into Christian times.

Most of the early Christian sarcophagi are carved with Biblical subjects symbolical of the new birth, the great Sacrifice, the Resurrection, the Last Judgment, &c., such as the creation of Adam and Eve, Moses striking the rock or raising the serpent, Jonah and the whale, Daniel and the lions, the parables and miracles of our Lord, &c. These form as interesting a series of early Christian sculptures, combined with late Roman features, as is anywhere to be found.

On the east side of the town are the remains of some parts of the Roman walls, built in their usual massive manner. These consist of portions of the gate of the town, by which the Aurelian way entered, flanked by ruined round towers.

FIG. 19.

Nimes (Nemausus). Situated at no great distance from Arles, and at the base of the hills which bound the plain of the Rhone, Nimes formed the capital of the Volces Arecomiques (or inhabitants of the flat country). In B.C. 121 it submitted voluntarily to Rome, and a few years B.C. Augustus planted a colony there. Being enriched with baths, &c., by Agrippa, Nimes soon became an important town surrounded with walls and towers, and provided with all the usual public buildings. It had reached the height of prosperity when it was ravaged by the Vandals in 407. In 472 it fell under the power of the Visigoths, who established themselves in the town, and made the amphitheatre their fortress. After suffering the usual course of sieges and destruction by the Saracens and Franks, Nimes early declared itself a Republic. In 1185 it came under the suzerainty of the Count of Toulouse, in which condition it continued to flourish till it finally passed to France under Louis VIII., along with the other domains of the Count of Toulouse after the Albigensian wars.

FIG. 20. AMPHITHEATRE, NIMES.

Although Nimes was a comparatively obscure town in the days of the Empire, the remains of its Roman monuments are the finest in Southern Gaul. The Amphitheatre ([Fig. 19]) is not quite so large as that at Arles, nor is the interior ([Fig. 20]) so well preserved, but the exterior is more complete. It measures 437 feet by 332 feet, with thirty-two rows of seats which contained about 20,000 spectators. The amphitheatre is now well seen, owing to the removal of the paltry buildings which had invaded it both within and without. Like all such Roman works it is constructed with the most massive materials, built without cement, and all bound together with solid stone lintels and arches. [Fig. 21], a view in the corridor on the first floor, gives some idea of the colossal strength of the masonry. But these great stone lintels, massive as they are, indicate a vicious form of construction, many of them being cracked and shattered by the weight of the arches resting upon them. The exterior is of the usual design of such edifices having two arcades superimposed one on the other, with upright pilasters, or engaged columns, between the arcades supporting horizontal entablatures. Each arcade has sixty arches. The pilasters of the ground tier are square, and have no base, while the engaged columns of the upper tier are round and of the Doric order; above the latter is the attic, partly demolished, but still containing 120 bold consoles with holes to receive the masts which supported the velarium or awning.

There are four principal entrances at the four cardinal points; that of the North ornamented with a cornice resting on two bulls’ fore quarters. Similar ornamental bulls were introduced in the Temple which stood where the Cathedral is now built, and on the fine gate of Augustus of this city. Some therefore think it a kind of coat of arms given by the Emperors to the town. Others imagine that these features were adopted in order to flatter the Emperor Augustus, some bulls’ heads having been sculptured on the house in which he was born. A few sculptures are still visible on the amphitheatre, including two gladiators, and the Roman wolf.

A very large part of the ornament is left in block, only the western division being finished, the carving of the remainder never having been completed. The podium surrounding the arena is low, as at Arles, thus confirming Mérimée’s views as to the provisions which required to be adopted for the safety of the audience.

FIG. 21